With most NBA players (and most Nets players) now eligible to be traded as of Saturday, Marc J. Spears put together a list of who are the most likely players to be dealt ... and MarShon Brooks is on the list. But factors other than his on-court performance are likely to factor into a trade decision.

Spears writes of Brooks...

Brooks had a sensational rookie season averaging 12.6 points. But with the addition of Joe Johnson, Brooks has averaged just 6.2 points through his first 14 games this season. Sources said the Nets dangled Brooks in offseason trade talks, but his low contract number makes it difficult to get much of a return for him in a deal.

"They are one of the rare teams that can afford to keep their team at a championship level financially," an NBA GM said. "For them, the development of young players isn't important because they can overspend."

and the reply i posted (currently 3rd post from the top):

Quote:

I still don't get it--

If the guy is a gifted scorer on a rookie contract and has a good attitude, isn’t he worth hanging on to? Despite his slow progress at picking up defense? Or is there something more going on behind the scenes? I mean, the Nets already jettisoned realistic hopes of competing for a championship with all the inflated contracts they signed or took on, so WHY is the idea of developing talent in-house treated as being so worthless… if I’m reading the agenda of the article correctly?

realGM has a very interesting thread about marshon... i hadn't realised there were that many hardcore nets fans who strongly dislike the dude's game. "low BBIQ" seems to be the dominant motif, although in fairness, you could probably say the same thing about humphries.

whatever. in any case, i guess i answered my own question. i just need to find that smiley for patting myself on the back.

I wouldn't trade Marshon. To me, that is the kind of young player who could make a leap and all of a sudden a team that isn't a contender suddenly is closer. And he's also a player that can move into a bigger role as other pieces get older. Or if Wallace gets hurt (the way he plays injuries will come) or JJ declines at all at his age. Yes, Marshon looks lost on defense but he's not given a defined role. It's hard to improve that quickly without a defined role.

I said this before (and i actually posted it at the time i heard it, why doesn't Avery like Marshon?) there was a time last year Marshon was playing well, and a reporter asked Avery about his backcourt of the future of Deron and Brooks (at the point people were comparing him to Kobe) and Avery said "i don't see Brooks as a starter, i see him as the type of player who would be a good sixth man". at the time the Nets had very little (healthy) talent, and no JJ. It was telling to me. A very pat "yes, he's playing well" would have sufficed.

We'll see what happens but if the Nets are really determined to move Brooks it's probable they do, and i find it hard to see how they get value.

what i was looking forward to (long-term) after this offseason was for JJ and wallace to be traded away as expirers in their final years and for people like marshon to step up and fill the void at such time. but i'm not sure if that works, anymore.

one of BK's biggest strengths is finding talent, and making deals for all these insane contracts effectively sabotages a lot of that.

i don't mind avery calling marshon a 6th player when he IS a 6th player. if he wants better than that, that's on marshon. and stack was obviously lighting it up in practice and bogans is obviously way better on D, so i can understand them getting higher usage this season. but not marshon getting zero usage so many games.

i mean, how much trade value are you going to get for a player if you make him look this unwanted? in a sense, maybe all this actually means is that the nets want to light a fire under the kid and have the confidence that he'll do the right thing in the end, i.e. learn the playbook and hustle his ass on D.